In a judgment with far-reaching implications for retired judicial officers across India, the Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, which restricts eligibility for the honorary title of Senior Advocate under the said provision only to retired officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS).
The judgment was delivered on March 27, 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in W.P.(C) 2045/2025 – Sh. Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General & Anr.
The Case: Retired Judge Seeks Recognition
The petitioner, Shri Vijai Pratap Singh, a retired judge of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and former Member (Judicial) of the NCLT as well as Member (Technical) of the NCLAT, challenged Rule 9B as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Singh argued that despite his vast judicial and tribunal experience, he was excluded solely on the basis of not having served in Delhi’s judicial system.
Appearing in person alongside his counsel Mr. Utkarsh Kandpal and Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Singh contended that:
- Rule 9B creates an unreasonable classification by allowing only DHJS retirees to seek designation as Senior Advocate.
- He has been practicing in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court since retirement.
- His work in NCLT and NCLAT, which fall under Delhi High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, should be considered equivalent.
- No other High Court imposes a similar territorial restriction for designation.
Singh relied on judgments such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel to argue against geographic discrimination in matters of professional practice.
Respondent’s Stand: Administrative Logic Behind Rule 9B
The Delhi High Court, represented by Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Ms. Suparna Jain, Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Ms. Rupam Jha and Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, justified the rule.
It was argued that:
- The High Court possesses the ACRs/APARs and detailed service assessments of DHJS officers.
- This enables an informed, institutional evaluation for Senior Advocate designation, which would not be possible for officers from other States.
- Rule 9B is intended to create an alternate, non-point-based route (exempting them from the detailed scoring system under Rule 9A) for officers who had served under Delhi’s judicial wing.
An extract from the Rules Committee’s meeting minutes (dated 27.02.2025) was placed on record, noting that:
“The Judges of the High Court of Delhi would not have had an opportunity to appraise the work and performance of retired judicial officers from other States; hence it would not be possible to assess their suitability for being designated as Senior Advocates.”
The Court’s Ruling: Rule 9B is Constitutionally Valid
The Court upheld Rule 9B, noting that:
“Designation as a Senior Advocate is a distinction or recognition, not a right. There is no indelible or constitutional right to such designation.” — Delhi High Court
It ruled that:
- The classification between DHJS officers and officers from other States is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object of ensuring a fair and informed designation process.
- Officers from other States are free to apply under Rule 9A, which applies to advocates with 10+ years of practice, but not under Rule 9B, which waives point-based assessment based on internal administrative familiarity.
- Service in Tribunals like NCLT/NCLAT, while important, does not fall under the administrative control of the Delhi High Court under Article 235 and hence cannot be benchmarked using internal judicial records.
The Bench further observed:
“The seriousness and the importance of evaluating an advocate or retired judicial officer for Senior Advocate designation cannot be undermined… It is not merely based on records but also on judicial familiarity, demeanour, and performance within the institution.”
It also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the rule infringes upon his right to practice under Article 19(1)(g), stating:
“Denial of Senior Advocate designation does not amount to curtailment of the right to practice law. It is not an impediment to legal practice.”
Petition Dismissed; No Relief for Petitioner
The Court concluded by dismissing the petition, stating that the challenge was “bereft of merits.” The Minutes of the Rules Committee were formally taken on record.
There was no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 9B remains applicable only to retired DHJS officers, providing them a special route to Senior Advocate designation without undergoing a points-based system.
- Retired judicial officers from other States must wait to complete 10 years of practice and apply under Rule 9A like regular advocates.
- The High Court reiterated that designation is not a fundamental right, but a privilege based on holistic evaluation and judicial familiarity.
